Judgment
revn74.15 13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2015
Shri Mukund s/o Haribhau Bhartiya,
Aged about 49 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Vitthalwadi, Kandi, Paratwada,
Taluka Achallpur, District Amravati. ….. Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Sau. Anjali Mukund Bhartiya,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation Private Business.
2. Vinay s/o Mukund Bhartiya,
Through Legal Guardian Anjali Mukund Bhartiya,
Aged about 16 years, Occupation Education,
Both R/o C/o Shri M.N. Sarpatwar,
Akshay Vishal Colony, Vimal Nagar,
Near Farshi Stop, Amravati,
Taluka and District Amravati. ….. Non-applicants.
Shri R.R. Vyas, Counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. I.P. Kristi, Counsel for the non-applicants.
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
…..2/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
2
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel Shri R.R. Vyas for the
applicant and learned counsel Mrs. I.P. Kristi for the non-
applicants.
2. Challenge is set up in this revision by the
applicant to judgment and order passed by learned Judge of
the Family Court at Amravati dated 7.4.2015 in Petition No.E-
184 of 2012 filed on behalf of the present non-applicants. By
the impugned order, learned Principal Judge of the Family
Court at Amravati partly allowed the petition filed on behalf
of the present non-applicants under Section 127 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and directed that the present applicant
shall pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance for non-
applicant No.1 and Rs.7,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2
towards his maintenance from the date of order i.e. 7.4.2015.
3. According to learned counsel Shri R.R. Vyas for
…..3/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
3
the applicant, non-applicant No.1 is not his wife since there is
a decree of divorce; secondly non-applicant No.2 being a son
of a teacher is not required to pay any fees, and thirdly non-
applicant No.1 is doing a part-time job with Dr. Sontakke and
is getting sufficient amount. He, therefore, submits that the
impugned judgment and order is required to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Mrs. I.P. Kristi for the
non-applicants opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel Shri R.R. Vyas for the applicant. She supported the
impugned judgment.
5. In the year 2002, learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Court No.4 at Amravati allowed the application for
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In the said order, the rights of non-applicant No.1
as wife and non-applicant No.2 as son of present non-
applicant No.1 were crystallized. The said order was never
…..4/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
4
challenged by the applicant. With the result, it is an
established fact that the applicant neglected both the non-
applicants though he was bound to maintain them. It is also
an established fact that by virtue of the said order, which
attains finality, non-applicant No.1 was not having any means
to maintain herself and her minor son i.e. non-applicant No.2.
6. It is not in dispute that both non-applicants used
to receive maintenance amounts of Rs.700/- and Rs.800/-
regularly, as granted by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class.
7. It is also not in dispute that, in the meanwhile,
there was a decree of divorce in between the applicant and
non-applicant No.1 and the status of non-applicant No.1 is a
divorcee of the applicant.
8. It is also not in dispute that as on today, non-
applicant No.1 has not re-married. Even, it is an admitted fact
…..5/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
5
that in spite of divorce, the present applicant did not marry
again.
9. On 23.11.2012, the non-applicants presented a
petition in the Family Court at Amravati under Section 127 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and claimed enhancement of
the maintenance. The said petition was registered as Petition
No.E-184 of 2012. According to the said petition, due to
passage of time from 2002 to 2012, in view of steep rises in the
essential commodities and hike in educational expenses, it is
not possible for the non-applicants to carry on their life
smoothly. They, therefore, claimed that the maintenance be
granted to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to each of the non-
applicants.
10. On being summoned, the applicant appeared and
filed his written statement in the aforesaid petition filed
under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The gist
…..6/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
6
of the written statement of the applicant is that after the
decree of divorce, non-applicant No.1 cannot claim
enhancement of the maintenance. There is no hike in the
educational expenses. Since non-applicant No.2 is a son of a
teacher, she is not required to pay any fees as per the rules
and non-applicant No.1 is working as a part-time employee of
Dr. Sontakke and is getting monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- per
month. It is also stated that the applicant is under an
obligation to maintain his aged parents. He, therefore, prayed
that the application be dismissed. Both the parties entered
into the witness box.
11. In the cross-examination of the applicant, the
applicant has stated as under:
“xSjvtZnkj dz-2 gk ekk eqyxk vkgs- eyk ekfgrh
ukgh dh fou; 10 O;k oxkZr f’kdr vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks
[kjs vkgs dh f’k{k.kkpk [kpZ gk fnolsafnol okrk vkgs-
gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh fou;P;k ckcrhr f’k{k.kkpk [kpZ
…..7/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
7
okysyk vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh vatyh uksdjhl
vkgs fdaok fryk mRiUukps lk/ku vkgs gs n’kZfo.;kdfjrk
eh dks.krkgh dkxni++ nk[ky dssysyk ukgh-”
The applicant himself, thus, has admitted that
there is a hike in the educational expenses. It is admitted by
him that non-applicant No.2 is taking education in “Manibai
Gujartati High School” which is one of the reputed schools in
the Amravati City. Though in the written statement it is
claimed by the applicant that non-applicant No.1 is working
as a part-time employee with Dr. Sontakke and is getting
Rs.5,000/- per month by way of salary, as reproduced herein
above, he has not filed any document to show the same.
Further, it was always open for the applicant to call the said
doctor in evidence to establish the said fact, however no
attempt was made on behalf of the applicant in that behalf.
12. Consequently, it is clear that just for the sake of
…..8/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
8
taking defence, the said defence was taken that non-applicant
No.1 is working. However, in absence of any proof thereof, in
my view, learned Principal Judge of the Family Court at
Amravati has rightly discarded the said case to that extent, as
tried to put forth by the applicant.
13. Insofar as parents are concerned, in the cross-
examination of the non-applicants, the applicant had brought
on record that the father of the applicant is getting pension.
Once it was the case of the applicant that his parents are
dependents on him, then the burden was firmly on the
shoulder of the applicant to establish the said fact by
adducing cogent evidence. Nothing was brought on record to
show that how his father is dependent on him. In that
background, the admission brought on record through the
non-applicants by the applicant himself that father of the
applicant is recipient of pension assumes its own importance.
…..9/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
9
14. The Court can take a judicial note that there is
steep hike in the essential commodities from the year 2002-
2012. Therefore, the case of the non-applicants, that there is a
hike in the essential commodities and, therefore, the non-
applicants require enhanced maintenance, cannot be
discarded. Further, as per Exhibit 47, which is a salary
certificate for the month of September 2013, the salary of the
applicant is to the tune of Rs.34,822/-. During the course of the
oral submissions before this Court, learned counsel Shri R.R.
Vyas for the applicant has submitted that in the year 2002 the
salary of the applicant was Rs.8,000/-. Thus, there is at least
hike of four times of the salary of year 2002. Further, merely
because there is a divorce, the applicant cannot absolve his
responsibility to maintain non-applicants since it is not his
case that she has re-married. Consequently, in my view, no
case is made out for interference in a well reasoned judgment
of learned Judge of the Family Court. Hence, the revision is
…..10/-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::
Judgment
revn74.15 13
10
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule
is discharged.
15. As per orders passed by this Court on 14.7.2016,
the applicant has deposited amount by way of maintenance
regularly and that amount is lying with the Registry of this
Court since the said amount is towards the maintenance of
the non-applicants. The non-applicants are permitted to
withdraw the said amount. Registry is directed to permit the
non-applicants to withdraw the amount deposited by the
applicant in view of order dated 14.7.2016.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
…../-
::: Uploaded on – 22/12/2017 23/12/2017 02:16:49 :::